Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20160727ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 27, 2016 1 Jim DeFrancia called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance were Bob Blaich, Nora Berko, John Whipple and Jeffrey Halferty. Gretchen Greenwood, Micahel Brown and Willis Pember were absent. Staff present: Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Planner Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk MOTION: Jeffrey moved to approve the minutes of July 13 th second by Bob. All in favor, motion carried. Disclosure John will recuse himself on 627 W. Main 232 E. Main Street – Demolition, Conceptual Major Development, Conceptual Commercial Design, Special Review and Variation Review, Public Hearing Affidavit of posting – Exhibit I Photo - Exhibit II Amy said there was a site visit to indicate where the property lines were and lot lines. HPC will be discussing demolition, special review and variation review. HPC is being asked whether the demolition criteria are met to remove the existing gas station which has been there over 60 years. The structure was never identified as a contributing building. Staff supports demolition finding that the criteria are met. Conceptual – height, scale, massing and proportion. Amy said the proposed building is 1 ½ stories tall and a good fit for the neighborhood. The two gabled roof modules are related to the width of other elements on the street. Most of the buildings on the block are of a Victorian era and the Cortina Lodge is next door. Everything on this block is landmarked except this site. The gabled roof that is closest to the Cortina is about 3 feet taller at the ridge. On the corner closer to Carl’s it is 7 feet taller than the Cortina but equal in height with Carl’s. There are a few dimensional variances that need to be considered. Floor area – On this ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 27, 2016 2 property one is able to build up to 1to1 floor area as it is just less than a 6,000 square foot lot but you can only achieve that if you have a mix of uses. In this case it is all commercial and commercial is only allowed .75 to 1. That would be 4,482 square feet. The applicant is proposing to go to the 1 to 1, an extra 1,494 square feet devoted to commercial use. That is something you can allow through special review. Staff supports that because the overall volume of the building is not changing. Most of that square footage is accommodated in a loft level. If it was denied and they removed it, you would still see the same project. Overall the building is a good fit for the neighborhood in terms of scale and there is no impact from the extra 1,500 square feet devoted to commercial. It also maximizes the use of the lot and staff supports that. Setbacks - The next dimension issue is setbacks. The Main Street zone district requires a 10 foot front yard and 5 feet on the sides and rear. The project is right on the joint between mixed use and commercial core. As soon as you cross the street on both sides there are no setback requirements but we are in the mixed use zone district. As you look down the block there is a lot of Victorian development and a number of the buildings have a nice deep front yard at least 15 feet. On the front yard the requirement is ten feet and HPC can through special review allow that to be reduced to five feet and that is the request. Special review allows you to make decisions based on what you think is the best fit for the neighborhood. This is not a hardship discussion, it is a discussion as to what is appropriate. The five feet proposed feels very close to the sidewalk in my opinion and that is where a deck is proposed with a deep overhanging eave. The wall itself would be ten feet back. Staff recommends to not allow the variance because we feel it is too close to the street and doesn’t provide the graceful setback that is found on other buildings on the block. The entry seems to be emphasized on the side street so we think that contributes to the feeling that there is not enough of a front expressed here. There is no real front door and that all leads to the concern of the appropriateness of the reduction in the front yard variance. On the sides the applicant would like to go to the property line on the west to touch Cortina. There would be a potential issue of snow dumping of this new structure towards that building and that isn’t allowed by Engineering or the Building Dept. The applicant said they have some techniques to stop that happening. On the east side facing Carl’s the building does meet the setback and in some areas more than meets it. The fixed awning over the doorway is a setback violation. They have it coming to the property line and ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 27, 2016 3 that isn’t allowed. You are only allowed an 18 inch overhang. The rear yard meets the setbacks. On the two side yards those variances can be granted based on finding a hardship. It is not based on what is the best fit for the neighborhood. You have to make findings that the variance is needed due to an unnecessary hardship that something is being denied that other people have. Staff is unable to make that recommendation. The applicant is required to address parking. There is currently no legal parking spaces on the site and they will be required to provide 3.8 spaces and th ey would pay cash-in-lieu. They also have to provide for adequate trash and recycling which are all accommodated in the back of the building along the alley. They are appropriately sized and supported by Environmental Health. The applicant needs to provide a certain amount of public amenity either onsite or cash-in-lieu payment. They are providing it onsite and this project will provide a dramatic transformation of this intersection. They will rebuild the sidewalk and add a green strip and add a We-cycle station and provide on street parking. They are improving beyond their property as well. In conclusion we support the project and it is a terrific addition to town. The only issue is the setback variances and that is significant enough to recommend continuance. Jeffrey said the We-cycle is an excellent addition especially on the corner and it will go away in the winter and become a parking space. Jim clarified that staff is recommending that there not be a variance for the front setback. On the east, the setback is OK but the awning overhang is not. Amy clarified if the awning was retractable they wouldn’t need a variance. Jim clarified on the west side they want to go to the property line but there is a potential snow accumulation in which they might be able resolve. Amy said on the west side that variance can only be granted through a finding of hardship. Applicant Mark Hunt, owner said they are excited about the project. We listened to what the community said and they liked the chalet style that respects Aspen and the West End. It is an architecture of today. We are looking at natural materials, metal, wood and glass. We are greatly improving the streetscape. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 27, 2016 4 The We-cycle will be in the planting area not on the street. Regarding the setbacks on Main Street there is nothing but the awning. I would prefer not to put a canvas awning but there are other ways we can address that. In order for the architecture to be successful, the shadow line and overhang make it successful. Lopping that off will make it a very different building. It would be too glassy at that point. On the west side by the Cortina the space is funky. This is the first intersection where all the corners hold the street and we feel it is appropriate to butt the building and it fits in. Sara Adams from BendonAdams represented the applicant. Sara said the property is on the cusp of the commercial core and there are a lot of landmarks in this block. The gable form from the landmarks influenced our design. At this intersection there is a range of setbacks and building types and there are uses of commercial, affordable housing and residential but primarily commercial. A walkway was added at the front and we do understand the importance of having an entry on Main Street in addition to the entrance on Monarch Street. We have onsite public amenity and the first five feet of the front yard is green space. On Monarch Street all the curb and gutter and improvements to the sidewalk will be worked out with the Parks Dept. and the Engineering Dept. Our public amenity exceeds what is required by 300 square feet and our public amenity is mostly usable space. The project is well below the height limit and the deep overhang that is proposed is reminiscent of what you see at the Cortina Lodge and we think it creates a nice rhythm with the Cortina next door. The building face is set back 11 feet and the porch overhang is about five feet back on Monarch Street. The windows and deep overhangs interact with the street and allow the building to open up for the pedestrian and create vitality on this corner. On the Monarch Street side the building face is set back 5 feet closest to the intersection and then it steps back to seven feet. The intent is to create a very open building. We are requesting an increase of the commercial floor area. The mixed use zone district says it should be .75 to 1 but you are allowed to increase it up to 1 to 1 if you go through special review and find that it meets the character of the neighborhood. Changing the inside uses isn’t going to change the massing. We feel a 100% commercial project is more in line with feedback that council has been giving in their work sessions. Some of the reasons for the moratorium is the impact of residential in the mixed use zone district. We have a trash and a transformer along the alley. A flat roof is tucked close to the Cortina Lodge that will hide mechanical equipment. Parking is mitigated through cash -in- lieu. Regarding the setbacks adjacent to the Cortina it is 5 feet and the front ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 27, 2016 5 yard is five feet. The code allows for a five to ten foot setback on Main Street with special review. There are a range of different setbacks on Main Street especially as you get closer to the commercial core. We feel this project changes this corner for the better. Regarding snow melt we are looking into a system with gutters on the Cortina side. The code doesn’t allow snow to shed onto another property so we will be working with engineers to develop a snow shedding system that will not affect the Cortina and that will meet all the city codes. Dwayne Romero, represented the applicant Having the five foot setback and creating a five foot void narrow alley could perhaps become more of an operations and maintenance safety consideration. Snow loading and debris would fall into the center piece. More importantly are the safety issues. A five foot void would become an attractive nuisance. It would not be a public pathway. Jeffrey asked the applicant to address the entry on Main Street. Sara said the architects are studying an entry and adding the walkway was the first step. There is a significant grade change from the front to the back of the site. They have been working on how to do a smooth transition into the building that would meet ADA etc. We will come back at final with a design. John inquired about the potential use of the space. Mark said they had talked to a group to do a Tony Town but they have picked another town so we are unsure what will go into the space as the process takes a long time. It’s not a bowling alley or a lodge. Nora said if the front yard setback were to be pulled back five feet how would the upper floor be impacted. What can be done to the front? What can be mitigated so that there is less of a setback in the front? Mark said the only thing in the setback is the overhang. The easy solution is to cut the overhang off. If we were to do that we would explore a different building. We were trying to engage the guests to come out and we wanted an area where they could sit outside the store with a covering. The glass wall is 11 feet off the lot line. We are only dealing with the roof line that ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 27, 2016 6 hangs over. The overhang would be shortened to one foot and then architecturally the building becomes a glass building vs a chalet building. Nora asked if it is possible to do a retractable awning on the east side so you don’t need that variance. Mark said that could be accomplished. Bob clarified that the sidewalk will be added on the Monarch Street side which is a good public amenity. The concern I have which is not part of the project is that the sidewalk goes nowhere and maybe there is a way that the City could extend that sidewalk. There is public parallel parking on Monarch. Many people have had close calls backing out of Carl’s. It would be interesting if there was a way not to have parking on your side. Mark agreed that it is a dangerous area but the no parking would be a city issue. Jim DeFrancia said possibly the parking could be corrected on the Carl’s pharmacy side. Jim DeFrancia opened the public hearing. Joe Charel asked if there was a height variance on the proposal. Joe said two couples own the condo behind the proposal. Sara said they project is well below the height limit. Joe said if it is commercial is there going to be any city ordinance prohibiting 2:00 a.m. deliveries. We are subject to the trash etc. already. Right now it is a quiet neighborhood. Jim said the character of those kinds of uses would be a function of the occupant of the building and there are city codes that govern your concerns which they would be obligated to comply with. John Feza, condo owner. We appreciate the applicant trying to make Aspen great. We would like to protect our home and our investment. What is the height? ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 27, 2016 7 Sara said the maximum height is 28 to 32 feet. At the rear the proposal is 23 1/2 feet and at the front due to the grade change it is a little over 20 feet. Amy said the tallest part of the building is about the same height as Carl’s pharmacy which is about 26 ½ feet. John Feza said they were worried about the view and light coming in. Sara said there is a flat portion in the back that is at 14.3 and you a re directly across from that. John Feza asked about the amount of square feet that the building would occupy. John Whipple explained that the only setback variances sought after are maintaining the zero setback along the western façade, Cortina Lodge and to the front the encroachment is the eave of the roof. Sara said the footprint is about 4,200 square feet. Mark clarified that the square footage is putting a loft in the peak inside but the building would remain as is. Amy said HPC can make a finding to allow the commercial building to go up to 6,000 square feet which is 1,500 square feet bigger than normally allowed by finding that it is basically compatible with the surrounding land uses and consistent with the purposes of the zone district. Jim DeFrancia closed the public comments. Commissioner comments Jeff commented that staff’s memo was clear as was the presentation. The project does conform to our guidelines especially in this district. Architecturally the chalet forms work with the Cortina Lodge and comply with some of the roof forms on Main Street. Having the entrance as staff suggested would help conform to the guidelines. The shadow of the roof eave does enhance the building and it breaks down the glazing. The steel overhang that faces Monarch which is the east can be worked out. I support the request for the variance as buildings are built against each other all the time. The snow concern is valid but they will have an architectural solution to that. The water runoff and drainage would need to be maintained. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 27, 2016 8 Regarding the parking that area is a tough back out corner. The butterfly roof on the east has challenging drainage issues which will need to be addressed. Nora thanks the applicant for the presentation and the public input. I can support this application along with staff’s setback requests. My concern is the precedent question. The fact that the Cortina doesn’t have a setback is because it is an historic building. I like a little breathing space between buildings. My hesitation has always been creep. It is the lot line on the west side that I am struggling with because I don’t see a hardship. John said he can support the 1 to 1 ratio because it doesn’t change the size of the building. In terms of the setbacks I don’t like the vacant voids in between buildings in town. They are a dark void and end up with clutter, trash and ice maintenance. I am in favor of the zero lot line setback on the west. On the front façade we are a community that prides itself on the green technology and we want to preserve our views. The overhang is really “smart building” and I am in favor of the variance because it also makes usable space outside on the front and on the east side. No one wants to come out and have snow drop on their head and having the overhang protects that. John said he appreciates the fact that the applicant has come back and this project will suit the community well. Bob said he would support the variances and this is a commendable project and I would like to see it proceed. At some point the city should address parking in this area. On Carl’s side that sidewalk can be dangerous. The entire area should be looked at as it is also a public safety issue. Jim said he feels this is a great project and the applicant has done a fine job. I also support the west side variance with the snow melt solution. The way the front is designed you need some over hang to protect the glass and it creates a sense of openness on the corner. I appreciate the concerns addressed about the traffic which should be looked at by the City. Transportation and Engineering should look at the entire area with the sloping street. MOTION: Bob moved to approve resolution #22 as proposed; second by John. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 27, 2016 9 Nora amended the motion to add that the east side have a retractable overhang. Jeff amended the motion to add a second entry on Main Street. John said at final they would need to come back with fenestration on the front door. John said for the south facing façade there is an energy efficiency hardship that would be placed on the applicant and the community for not giving any shoulder protection. On the west façade it would be a hardship having another trash collection void. We have tried to close down those for years and the core has closed down a lot of those. The core doesn’t need vacant gaps between buildings. Bob accepted the amendments and John second them. Amy reiterated the motion. An entry on the south elevation should be better expressed perhaps through fenestration. On the east no variance and to restudy the canopy element. On the south HPC finds that the variance is appropriate for energy efficiency under special review and on the west the proximity of the Cortina makes the five foot setback on this site problematic and undesir able. There is also a public safety consideration on that side. Roll call vote: Jeffrey, yes; John, yes; Bob, yes; Nora, yes; Jim, yes. Motion carried 5-0. Nora commented that she is philosophically opposed to setbacks but she listened to the comments from the commission and voted yes for the motion and project. 627 W. Main – Substantial Amendment to Major Development Approval, Public hearing continued from June 22nd. John recused himself. Amy stated that this is an addition to a Victorian in the Main Street historic district. This is an older project that has not been completely constructed. The upper floor of the addition is not built and the applicant would like to do ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 27, 2016 10 a revision to what was previously approved in 2008. Staff’s concern with the proposal is that there is a cross gable form right behind the Victorian so you see a bulkiness from the street. The pitch of the roof is rather shallow, 8 x12 rather than 12 x 12. Staff did not recommend approval of this option i n your packet; however, another option was received by the deadline, Exhibit I which we are in support of. Exhibit I is a singled gable roof form over the upper floor addition and is simple and identical to what exists on the Victorian and it has the same roof pitch and is taller. The buildings on this street are relatively close together and it is difficult to get a full view down the side between this building and the landmark next door. Given that it will not have an overwhelming impact from the street and staff recommends approval. There are vertically oriented windows and we have been given information about exterior lighting. Steev Wilson, Forum phi Steev said at the last meeting we received good feedback and we created a building with a little separation. The previous approval was a long gable with dormers in it. We have the ten foot gap and the historic roof form which is very simple with a gable that goes all the way back. We will be matching that with another very simple gable and maintain ing the ten foot separation. We will remove the dormers and we have an extra foot of ridge height in the project. There is a rear deck facing south getting a nice overhang to protect from the solar gain on the southern side. There will be can lighting underneath the roof form with sconces along the exterior doors. A very simple lighting plan. The landscape is unchanged from the original submission. The materials will be a dark asphalt shingle with a horizontal lap board painted wood. There will be an aluminum wood window on the back element to reduce maintenance for the owner. The upper portion of the building will be a vertical channel board wood siding about six inches wide. This is a much more modest proposal. Nora asked if a bonus was received. Steev said they received a 500 square foot bonus based on the premises of removing the paint from the brick of the Victorian house. Amy pointed out that it was a dramatic restoration to take that paint off. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 27, 2016 11 Nora pointed out that the stairway on the outside seems odd and the pop out on the east side seems out of place. Maybe an explanation is needed. Steev commented that the stairway has always been there and part of the original application and that remains unchanged. From the street facing façade the back side of the building is slightly wider so you will always be in the shadow of the pop out but it won’t be visible from the main corridor. Jim DeFrancia opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing was closed. Nora said she feels the proposal feels very unharmonious. Bob said this project has had numerous variations. Off all of them this is a better solution. It is not a great solution but I can’t find anything to vote against it. There is a lot going on with the project. Jim commented that if the finishes are properly done and the character of the building taken into account it might not be so awkward as it appears in concept. Jeffrey said the elimination of the cross gable is successful. The mass and scale is simpler. The materiality and changes in material are appropriate. To restore and remove paint and bring back a restoration is costly and quite an effort. The separation is good and the addition is sympathetic and not going up to the height limit. MOTION: Jeffrey moved to approve resolution #23 for 627 W. Main as presented with conditions as stated from staff and the approval of the lighting; motion second by Bob. Roll call vote: Nora, no; the compatibility is not there. Bob, yes; Jeffrey, yes; Jim, yes. Motion carried 3-1. MOTION: Bob moved to adjourn; second by Jeffrey. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 6:15 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk